Ids  3 

/y33 


i 


UC-NRLF 


B    3    fi^M    ^2^ 


RUNG  CHAP  BOOKS 

iDAKICHI  HARTMANN 

rmanent  Peace : 
it  a  Dream  ? 


UTED  BY  GUIDO  BRUNO  IN  HIS  GARRET  ON 
ASHINGTON  SQUARE.  NEW  YORK 


ctobcr  1915  Fifteen  Cents 


H-33 


BRUNO  CHAP  BOOKS 

Vol.  2  OCTOBER    1915  No.  4 

Permanent  Peace:     Is  it  a  Dream? 

By  Sadakichi  Hartmann 

\V^H01:\'I:R  has  strolled  tliroush  the  palace  of  Versailles, 
through  the  endless  picture  galleries,  one  suite  of  rooms 
followiiii;  the  other,  tilled  with  nothing  hut  battle  paintings  and 
military  scenes,  mostly  of  enormous  size  and  mediocre  work- 
manship, must  have  felt  weary  and  amazed,  a  dull  sort  of  irrita- 
tion and  indignation,  at  this  waste  of  effort  and  this  persistent 
rlnrification  of  warfare.  But  a  sojourn  in  Berlin  proves  even 
more  nauseating  in  this  respect.  On  every  square,  at  the  end 
of  every  thoroughfare  looms  some  soldier  monument,  equestrian 
figure,  victory  column  ;  entire  avenues  are  flanked  with  portrait 
statues  of  former  war  heroes,  as  if  the  population  were  devoted 
exclusively  to  the  worship  of  Mars  and  I'.cl!i)na.  Mvcn  v.e, 
an  unmilitary  though  not  necessarily  more  peace-loving  nation 
(we  have  a  record  of  eighteen  wars  and  disturhances  1.  insist 
on  dotting  out  parks  and  squares  with  hard  bronzcn  statues 
of  military  men.  while  poets,  scientists,  statesmen  and  philan- 
thropists are  thrown  in  only  occasionally  for  good  measure. 

There  is  something  strangely  inconsistent  ahcut  this  homage 
to  fighting  men,  when  we  consider  the  troubled  times  of  the 
past  wherever  violence  becanie  a  i^ece^sity  ami  the  joy  over 
victories  was  mingled  with  sorrow  and  suflfering.  It  sei-ms  that 
the  fascination  is  primarily  one  of  the  senses.  We  all  are 
fond  of  show  and  parades,  hunting  and  flags,  brass  band  an<I 
shouting,  the  excitement  of  the  crowd.  Tl'.e  acciTituated  meas- 
ures of  narch  music  and  patriotic  airs  affect  us  like  some 
physical  stimulant;  and  there  is  something  irresistible  i:i  a  man 
in  uniform  to  women,  which  even  Bourget  could  not  explain. 
As  for  actual  Jvcrvice!  It  is  not  fancied  quite  as  nuich.  How 
many  of  our  (ierman  population  have  left  heme  and  f.Ttht-r- 
land  to  evade  compulsory  servite !  Still,  there  se<-m  to  he  at 
all  times  plenty  of  young  men  who  fancy  an  adventurous  ex- 
ist- !  prefer  to  be  provided  for  insfcid  <>f  trving  to 
n-  wn  career.  For  her  colonial  warf.nre  (ire.nt  I'.ritain 
ha-  i  ■■  i.  ,..ulty  in  recruiting  a  s'lfticj^nt  number  of  Nolnnteers, 
and  there  is  no  gainsay  that  T'»tnmy  Atkins  is  tl;e  genuine 
soldier,  by  entering  the  service  voluntarily  and  regarding  it  as 
a  rrgular  profession,  and  that  there  is  sometliing   fascinating. 


mSOoOTo 


54  Bruno  Chap  Books 

wild  and  strange  in  the  pursuit.  American  recruiting  is  less 
successful  because  it  lacks  the  glamor,  change  and  excitement 
of  British  service. 

Yet  no  man,  and  woman  still  less,  in  times  of  peace,  reasoning 
logically,  would  deny  that  war  is  a  terrible  calamity.  There 
they  lie  in  trenches  oposite  each  other,  their  feet  in  mud, 
exposed  to  rain,  heat  and  cold,  fed  like  Spartans,  shooting  away 
at  some  unknown  opponent  and  shot  at  again  in  return,  fre- 
quently killed  or  maimed  for  life  without  having  seen  the 
enemy.  What  are  their  thoughts  during  the  long  nightwatches 
lit  up  only  with  searchlights,  rockets  and  fiery  shells? 

They  have  no  interest  at  stake  in  this  mole  work,  no  cause 
at  issue  in  these  endless  attacks  and  counter  attacks,  no  passion 
or  hatred  to  gratify.  They  are  mostly  men  from  the  ordinary 
walks  of  life,  torn  away  from  their  humble  vocations,  forced 
to  leave  their  family,  women,  old  folks  and  children,  to  shift 
for  themselves.  They  are  summoned  to  the  fields  by  the 
authorities  and  now  set  their  hearts  against  bayonets  and  by 
command  press  madly  to  some  battery's  blazing  tier. 

Is  there  anything  more  unjust  than  to  have  women  give  life 
to  male  offspring,  to  rear  them  to  manhood,  merely  to  see 
them  march  away  to  be  killed  from  afar  just  as  if  they  were 
cattle  raised  for  the  slaughter  house. 

And  what  atones  for  the  mother's  agony,  for  starvation  and 
destitution,  for  homes  destroyed  by  shell  and  fire,  for  children 
sent  adrift  and  outraged  daughters? 

But  is  it  not  all  for  the  glory  of  the  nation,  for  the  defense 
of  the  flag,  for  the  protection  of  the  home,  for  self  preservation, 
libert}',  safety,  future  welfare!  So  they  are  told,  and  the 
naiiJC  of  the  dead  soldier  is  used  to  glorify  the  bloody  deeds 
of  war,  that  others  may  follow  without  questioning. 

Why  are  wars  fought?  There  are  now  eleven  countries  en- 
gaged in  war,  more  may  be  drawn  into  it  at  any  moment. 

Can  any  layman  discern  and  explain  'the  different  sources 
from  whence  the  present  events  have  taken  rise ! 

The  Germans  are  said  to  fight  for  their  country,  for  the  de- 
feat of  Pan  Slavism,  the  Allies  for  self  preservation,  to  subdue 
German  militarism.  One  could  just  as  well  assert  that  they 
fight  for  the  control  of  China.  And  "so  each  nation  claims  to 
have  been  forced  into  it  and  to  fight  for  the  right,  while  they 
compete  in  reality  for  commercial  supremacy.  War  is  the 
logical  result  of  eager  competition.  Whenever  a  nation  is  be- 
coming too  powerful,  and  endangering  the  money  and  trade 
interests  of  other  countries,  a  declaration  of  war  is  brought 
about,  to  balance  matters  and  to  stop  progress,  momentarily 
at  least,  where  it  is  not  wanted.  Goods  made  in  Germany  have 
been  too  successful  not  to  arouse  envy.  In  a  few  years  the 
scale  of  events  may  turn,  and  they  may  be  all  fighting  Russia. 
Tust  as  Japan  will  be  engaged  in  a  prolonged  series  of  wars 
in    the   East.     Japan   needs   trade   expansion   as   acutely  as   its 


Bhuno  Chap  Books  S.s 

daily   ratioi  i    rice.      So   doi  ^    China,    Siam,    Nepal 

and  the  variuiii  dcijciukncics,  bul  Japan  is  best  prepared  to 
exert  itself,  it  wants  t'»  reap  the  harvest  and  will  not  mind  a 
lew  campaigns  of  conquest  if  seriously  opposed. 

Wars  are  invariably  fought  for  strictly  material  reasons. 
It  is  claimed  that  wars  are  no  longer  possible  for  pure  pur- 
poses of  conquest,  or  the  gratification  of  the  whims  of  some 
potentate.  Is  there  such  a  great  difference  between  kings  and 
ruling  parties,  between  conquest  and  trade  or  colonial  expan- 
sion. Only  the  pretext  has  been  changed.  Although  humanity 
is  sodden  with  the  pursuit  of  gain,  a  population  might  not  be 
quite  as  obedient  al>out  going  to  war,  if  the  reasons  urged 
made  not  some  direct  appeal  to  humanitarian  sentiment.  There 
must  be  a  pretext,  in  the  form  of  an  ethical  excuse.  As  to 
the  real  cause  the  masses  remain  in  the  dark.  It  is  secret 
history.  War  is  arranged  in  tinancial  circles  with  the  co- 
operation of  the  military  party  and  international  diplomacy-. 
Tho  n;oncy  interests  are  in  the  hands  of  the  few,  thus  it  is 
capitalism  that  instigates  war,  just  as  the  Church  and  Imperial- 
ism in  former  centuries.  The  casus  belli,  like  the  assassination 
of  the  .Austrian  archduke,  at  Serajevoi,  the  Kms  despatch,  the 
firing  in  Fort  Sumter,  the  blowing  up  of  the  Maine,  is  never 
more  than  an  incident.  The  honor  of  a  nation  does  not  allow 
sucli  or  such  a  thing  to  occur,  war  agitation  has  generally  pre- 
ceded it,  so  it  is  comparatively  easy  when  the  moment  is  ripe 
to  stir  up  war  sentiment  and  to  conceal  the  real  cause,  which 
often  originates  from  no  purer  source  than  human  passions  and 
selfish   motives. 

Tl'.c  crusaders  marched  to  Palestine,  no  doubt,  many  of  them 
\y\iU  fri,.  r,.'.,M.,i]s  fauaticism.  It  had  been  artificially  aroused. 
It  pretext,  to  put  an  end  to  occasional  Christian 

n-  t  »   regain   the  possession   of   the   Sepulchre.   But 

the  real  motive  of  pontifT  and  princes  was  to  oppose  the 
progress  of  the  Ottomans  and  to  enrich  themselves,  in  short 
an  invasion  of  conquest  and  aggrandisement. 

Even  in  wars  of  independence,  it  can  hardly  l>e  said  that 
war  is  forced  upon  a  country.  If  abuses  in  a  dependency  exist 
and  continue,  become  insufferable,  if  there  is  no  redress,  then 
tb-  -      I'd   community   is    t    -      '    •        '    .:iize  its   power   for 

il'  uch  a  way  as  is  v  cure  its  safety  and 

h  •  >r    the    future.      I  •♦    »'■•    --■••-'••.    are 

sf  rial  and  flow  froi;^  rtics. 

T  .k  was  the  result  i  •   .  ...  ation 

a:  :.in.      The     Knglish     from    modest    demands    in    the 

b-  if*rned   their   program   of   exploitation   more   boldly 

ai  f-very  year.    The  more  powerful  party  is  always 

d  'he  part  of  thr  ^^n'-y^T.     Wr.  on  the  other  hand. 

C'  at  first,  but  gradu- 

al changes.      Humble 

rctIl")^^traIn:c^   tii.mgcn    ii-.to   rev  >ii:t:' 'Mary   ucinands.      It   was   im- 


56  Bruno  Chap  Books 

possible  to  remain  indifferent.  Little  by  little  the  majority  was 
imbued  with  the  spirit  of  revolt,  and  the  result  was  war. 

And  the  cause  of  our  secession  war !  Freedom  for  the  slaves 
was  the  avowed  object  of  the  abolitionist  agitation,  while  be- 
neath it  lurked  an  unusually  vehement  party  strife  of  politi- 
cians. The  South  had  been  the  most  powerful  factor  in  politics. 
The  Northern  party  leaders  coveted  this  same  power.  The 
discontent  over  the  supposed  advantages  the  South  derived 
from  the  maintenance  of  slavery  also  did  not  help  matters. 
Decked  out  with  humanitarian  appeals  abolition  was  made  the 
ostensible  issue.  The  Secessionists  resented  this  and  advocated 
disunion.  Through  the  Missouri  Compromise  the  States  were 
geographically  divided,  and  the  long  threatened  outbreak  finally 
came  because  both  parties  (not  the  masses)  could  not  restrain 
themselves  any  longer.  The  trouble  had  been  brewing  for  forty 
years. 

Was  Pacific  abolition  an  absolute  impossibility?  Even  "bar- 
baric" Russia  in  1857  accomplished  the  liberation  of  the  serfs 
in  a  peaceful  manner.  Was  it  done  for  the  sake  of  humani- 
tarian principles?  Hardly.  It  was  the  dread  of  a  violent  peasant 
uprising.  There  had  been  so  many  peasant  insurrections  that 
it  was  thought  wisest  to  make  the  sacrifice.  In  Russia  it  was 
the  nobility,  a  small  minority,  versus  the  entire  farming  popu- 
lation, while  here  were  two  parties,  equally  unprepared  and 
equally  resourceful.  Both  parties  felt  too  strong  to  make  any 
concessions.     The  inevitable  result  was  war. 

If  it  is  true  that  the  hostilities  of  nations  are  prompted  by 
material  contrivances,  each  war  should  prove  its  economic  justi- 
fication. This  seems  to  be  difficult  to  believe,  when  we  consider 
the  enormous  war  loans  and  the  decline  of  exports.  Take  the 
case  of  any  of  the  belligerent  countries.  Each  country  has 
been  selhng  to  all  the  countries  she  is  fighting.  The  idea  that 
a  nation  could  possibly  gain  foreign  trade  by  fighting  some 
of  her  biggest  customers,  cutting  off  a  considerable  percentage 
of  its  business  seems  to  be  visionary.  But  it  works  merely 
like  an  investment  on  a  gigantic  scale.  The  momentary  losses 
and  the  expenditure  represent  the  investment.  War  means  to 
the  victor  new  openings  and  opportunities  to  increase  national 
wealth  and  prestige.  To  lose  the  war  is  the  risk  that  is  run. 
But  even  vanquished  nations,  if  not  entirely  annihilated  and 
annexed,  have  a  wonderful  recuperating  power.  Look  at  France 
after  the  Franco  German  war,  with  its  World's  Exposition  in 
1878. 

The  individual  is  only  indirectly  a  beneficiary.  But  the 
strenghtening,  development,  expansion  of  the  material  resources 
of  a  nation  can  not  be  censured  as  being  a  guilty  or  vain  am- 
bition. What  would  have  happened  if  we  had  lost  the  Inde- 
pendence war.  Another  war  and  another  war  until  we  had 
bought  our  freedom  by  roll  of  cannon  and  clash  of  arms.  It 
is  now  a  proposition  so  remote  that  it  is  difficult  even  to  imagine 


Bruno  CiiAH  Hooks  57 


it.  liut  \sc  arc  prtnul  tli.it  it  has  happened  ami  coiisiiler  it  worth 
all  the  sacnhccs  that  were  made  fur  it.  And  there  lies  the  deep 
rooted  trouhle,  if  a  victorious  nation  is  a  hcneficiary,  the  chancej 
for    a    world's    peace    become    very    nebulous    indeed. 

But  the  human  mind  is  obstinate,  it  there  must  be  wars  ai 
there  apparently  have  to  be  and  the  individual  can  do  nothiuR 
to  prevent  them,  it  insists  at  least  on  "civilized  warfare."  Uy 
this  is  meant  Red  Cross  service  and  relief  funds,  a  more  rational 
treatment  of  war  prisoners,  the  regulation  of  shippiuR.  the 
safety  of  neutrals,  armistices  to  bury  the  dead,  the  prohibition 
of  sacking"  evacuated  towns,  of  killing  the  wounnded  and  firing 
on  civilians,  and  all  those  principles  that  have  been  decided 
upon  at  the  Geneva  Conventions  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  an 
army  during  war  and  that  are  supjiosed  somcwiiat  to  ameloriate 
evils.  It  is  of  no  avail.  Civilized  warfare  is  a  paradox.  Warfare, 
premedidated  wholesale  slaughter  can  not  be  civilized.  To  send 
battle  ships  with  their  entire  crew  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea. 
to  sacrifice  an  entire  regiment  in  storming  an  entrenchment, 
without  any  special  purpose,  to  have  it  retaken  by  the  enemy 
on  the  morrow,  to  bombard  towns  and  to  figlit  big  battles 
where  the  casualities  run  into  the  hundred  thousands  are  in 
the  words  of  \'oltaire  not  the  work  of  God  but  of  the  devil, 
some  sinister  Siwa  bent  on  cruel,  merciless  destruction.  There 
is  no  difference  whether  one  is  clubbed  down  with  a  morning 
star  and  pierced  by  a  halberd,  or  torn  to  pieces  by  shrapnel 
and  throttled  by  asphyxiating  gas.  One  is  as  barbarous  as  the 
other.  Only  modern  war  has  become  more  scientifically  cruel. 
The  mucular  strength  has  dwindled  down   to  naught. 

As  for  atrocities:  atrocities,  acts  of  savagery,  cross  viola- 
tions of  rules  have  occurred  in  every  war,  and  non-combatants 
in  invaded  territories  are  naturally  the  scapegoats.  But  war 
in  itself  is  such  an  outrage  and  atrocity  that  all  minor  inci- 
dents of  executions  and  the  killing  of  neutrals  seem  trivial 
beside  it.  The  writer  was  brought  up  on  atrocity  tales  of  hor- 
rible mutilations  of  wounded  and  dead  supposed  to  have  been 
perpetrated  by  Zouaves  and  Turcos  on  the  Franco-German 
battle  fields.  It  is  more  than  likely  that  they  were  not  talcs 
but  approximating  the  truth.  Society,  even  by  the  infliction  of 
the  death  penalty,  can  not  alK)lish  murder.  How  then  can  one 
expect  that,  when  men  arc  sent  deliberately  to  slaughter  each 
other,  some  will  not  give  full  vent  to  their  latent  murderous 
instincts  and  commit  heinous  crimes  just  for  the  sake  of  com- 
mitting them,  and  even  gloat  over  their  bloody  deeds.  But 
do  not  blame  the  offender,  the  commanding  oflicer  or  even  the 
nation  too  h3r<ihlv,  blame  the  cati-e  and  not  the  efTrct. 

Of  course,  if  it  comes  to  methods  of  warfare  that  violate 
the  rights  of  neutrals,  it  certainly  is  proper  to  demand  their 
discontinuance.  Still,  if  a  nation  is  in  sole  possession  of  an 
etTcctive  instrument  of  destruction  that  constitutes  one  of  its 
most    powerful   and    successful    weapons,    it    will    surety   not   be 


58  Bruno  Chap  Books 

abandoned  as  long  as  the  particular  war  lasts  in  which  it 
was  first  introduced.  Wars  are  fought  to  do  as  much  damage 
as  possible.  The  more  fatal  a  weapon  is  the  better  it  serves 
the  purpose.  That  such  instruments  will  be  denounced  as 
inhuman  by  those  against  whom  they  are  employed  is  only 
natural.  But  as  long  as  Zeppelins  and  submarines  were  not  in 
operation  when  the  existing  international  agreements  that  should 
govern  war  were  made,  any  new  rules  pertaining  to  them  can 
not  be  decided  upon  before  the  end  of  the  war.  Protests  of 
course  can  be  made  but  they  can  be  settled  only  diplomatically 
unless  the  injured  nation  also  wishes  to  enter  a  state  of  war 
with  the  offender. 

Most  futile  of  all  is  the  indignation  over  the  destruction  of 
architectural  landmarks  like  the  cathedral  of  Rheims.  I  never 
knew  that  people  cared  so  much  for  art  in  times  of  peace. 
I  am  assuredly  a  worshipper  of  art,  but  I  cannot  persuade 
myself  that  the  destruction  of  the  Rheims  cathedral,  so  mar- 
velously  beautiful,  is  a  more  deplorable  incident  than  the  grief 
of  a  single  mother  who  has  lost  all  her  sturdy  fuUgrown  sons 
in  battle.  The  loss  of  inanimate  things  can  not  be  compared 
to  human  suffering.  And  if  all  the  monuments  ever  erected, 
all  the  pictures  ever  painted,  all  the  architectural  masterpieces 
of  the  world  were  destroyed  regrettable  as  these  losses  would  be 
they  would  not  exceed  in  importance  the  lives  that  were  lost. 
There  are  enough  artists  at  all  times  eager  to  assert  themselves. 
Let  them  sculpt,  let  them  paint,  let  them  build.  Do  not  deny 
them  the  chance.  What  we  need  in  art  is  a  live  interest,  con- 
temporary sympathy,  not  the  affected  curiosity  of  tourists'  appre- 
ciation. 

It  is  always  the  non-combatant  who  indulges  in  inflammatory 
rhetoric,  who  denounces  and  decries.  This  is  quite  natural, 
the  real  combatants  are  kept  busy  with  dodging  shrapnel  and 
hand  granades  while  the  non-combatants  insist  on  an  outlet 
for  their  wrought  up  sympathies.  They  can  not  help  beating 
up  antagonism,  for  perfect  neutrality  is  an  impossibility.  It 
is  possible  only  to  absolute  stoicism  or  philosophical  indiffer- 
ence. Zenos  and  sceptics  are  scarce  everywhere,  and  in  this 
country  we  are  all  so  called  hyphenated  Americans,  and  must 
take  sides  with  one  nationality  or  the  other.  Perfect  amalga- 
mation is  impossible  after  the  age  of  twenty-one,  and  nobody 
can  forget  his  ancestry  even  in  the  second  and  third  genera- 
tion. The  memories  of  childhood,  personal  habits,  customs, 
food,  environment,  acquired  knowledge,  inherited  traits  and 
inclinations  will  forge  to  the  surface  and  assert  their  rights. 
And  to  be  proud  of  the  home  of  our  parents,  of  the  country 
where  we  were  born  and  perhaps  also  educated,  do  not  these 
emotions  constitute  the  principal  germs  of  the  feeling  of 
patriotism?  If  it  is  true  that  even  a  naturalized  German  re- 
mains a  good  deal  of  a  German,  and  a  Russian  a  good  deal  of  a 
Russian,    we   can   only   respect   them    for   this   steadfastness   of 


BkCNo  Cmai-  Rooks  Sv 


scruimcuL  The  bonds  which  liold  alien's  to  a  newly  adoptcfl 
country  arc  not  quite  as  subtle  and  deep,  they  arc  governed 
by  duly,  by  reasoning,  the  oalli  ot  allcKiaiice  and  not  so  much 
by   sentiment. 

The  the  inconsistencies  of  war  talk  and  argument  arc 
plausible  enough.  Deplorable  is  only  their  lack  of  intelligence 
and  quiet  firnuiess.  It  is  astoiiivliiiig  what  proofs  of  ignorance 
and  narrow  niindedness  are  otTcrcd  by  sonic  of  our  citizens 
who  in  their  daily  harrangues  indulge  in  sixteen  inch  verbs 
to  hurl  highly  explosive  adjectives  against  their  adversaries. 

Nol>ody  in  war  times  can  be  trusted  for  absolute  impar- 
tiality. Even  literary  men  arc  not  to  be  relied  upon.  They 
arc  swayed  too  much  by  their  temperament,  the  picturcsqucness 
of  events  and  their  particular  theories.  Has  not  Napoleon  been 
lauded  to  the  sky  by  Byron  and  Ilcitie,  and  utterly  damned  by 
Hugo  and  Tolstoi?  Poets  a^-c  too  often  the  echo  of  public 
sentiment,  and  too  easily  influenced  to  show  off  their  talent 
in  inflammatory  odes  and  denunciatory  lyrics.  The  majority 
of  our  New  Kngland  poets  turned  rabid  al)olitionists,  even 
studious  I.owell.  and  coldly  reasoning  b'nicrson.  and  Whittier 
(most  extraordinary  for  a  Quaker)  shouted  himself  almost 
hoarse  in  his  \oices  of   Freedom. 

But  there  are  higher  and  noI>ler  strains  of  thought,  namely 
those   which   emenatc    from    religion    and   philosophy. 

If  there  is  a  higher  standard  of  the  principles  of  humanity 
and  justice,  which  according  to  most  religious  writings  from 
the  Zend  Avcsta  to  Christian  Science  should  govern  the  con- 
duct of  man  and  which  mankind  has  accepted  for  guidance, 
would  we  not  come  to  the  co-v:lis:on  that  war  is  absolutely 
uncondonable,  that  it  does  not  iT-atter  whr.t  nation  wins,  as 
the  victor  as  well  as  the  oppone.-.t  has  contributed  a  crimson 
stain  on  the  tattered  pages  of  the  history  of  human  progress. 
What  has  become  of  the  idea!  of  the  brotherhood  of  man  I 
Docs  not  the  doctrine  Love  Thy  N'eighlKjr  .-Xs  Thyself  sound 
like  a  travesty  in  the  state  of  pre>cnt  events !  Docs  it  not 
tread  profanely  on   the  cherished   scrolls  of   law  and  creed! 

We  arc  prone  to  put  the  blame  on  one  individual,  while 
indirectly  and  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  highest  tribunal,  we 
all  are  equally  at  fault.  There  is  too  much  of  the  wolf,  the 
fox.  the  hog  in  all  of  us,  in  Mr.  Ki«ckefeller.  as  well  as  in  you, 
kind  reader,  and  the  writer  of  thc^e  lines.  We  ourselves,  each 
of  us,  should  aspire  to  a  better,  <aner  and  nobler  life,  some 
soul  state  more  lil)cral,  more  forgiving,  less  selfish,  before  we 
can  justly  criticise  the  ebb  and  flow  of  human  events. 

Humanity  must  reach  a  stage  where  the  individual  impulse 
towards  good,  towards  mutual  support  and  peaceful  settlement 
of  diflerenccs  will  he  voiced  by  the  masses.  When  compulsory 
enrollment  and  levy  in  mass  will  be  opposed  by  a  vast  majority, 
when  recruiting  offices  will  stand  empty  and  arsenals  lie  deso- 
late,   when    the    cannons    will    be    buried    among   roses    (as    we 


60  Bruno  Chap  Books 

see  in  the  painting  of  Wiertz  in   Brussels)    and  no  ship  will 
leave  port  except  on  a  peaceful  errand. 

Unpractical,  wandering  thoughts,  no  doubt,  but  they  were 
shared  by  some  of  the  profoundest  thinkers,  as  Kant,  Hugo, 
Grotius,  Leibnitz,  Voltaire,  Lessing,  Herder,  Bentham,  who  were 
all   peace   propagandists. 

On  the  other  hand  there  were  always  some  master  minds 
who  endorsed  the  doctrine  of  revenge,  of  eye  for,  eye,  and  like 
for  like.  Tacitus,  the  historian,  believed  in  the  educational 
discipline  of  war,  and  Hegel,  the  German  philosopher,  saw  in 
permanent  peace  a  state  of  deterioration,  of  lethargy  and 
effeminacy.  A  trend  of  thought  which  found  perhaps  its  most 
drastic  expression  in  the  words  of  von  Moltke  "Universal  peace 
is  a  dream  and  not  even  a  beautiful  one.  War  is  an  element 
of  the  world  system  as  ordained  by  God.  The  noblest  virtues 
are  unfolded  thereby." 

It  can  not  be  denied  that  some  of  the  finer  passions  of  man, 
as  valor  enthusiasm,  occasional  outbursts  of  heroism,  defiance 
of  death  are  called  forth  by  warfare.  It  also  fosters  a  regulated 
simplicity  of  life  and  a  temporary  feeling  of  equahty.  Cast 
is  forgotten.  There  are  no  longer  Algerians,  Cambodians, 
Senegalese,  Madagascans,  only  Frenchman.  Autonomy  is  pro- 
claimed for  some  downtrodden  dependency.  It  is  also  said 
to  produce  new  values  and  to  consume  the  surplus.  The  ad- 
vantages of  these  developments  is  more  doubtful.  Could  not 
the  first  condition  be  brought  about  much  more  effectively  by 
higher  wages  and  cheaper  prices,  a  more  democratic  distri- 
bution of  products.  Besides  it  is  a  fallacy  that  war  accomplishes 
anything  like  that.  Socialists  and  labor  leaders  realize  this  only 
too  keenly,  and  the  conflict  between  capital  and  labor  is  smoul- 
dering beneath  the  very  smoke  of  war.  And  how  can  we 
reconcile  the  glory  of  motherhood  and  opposition  to  race  sui- 
cide with  the  theory  that  the  world  is  over  populated  and  that 
some  means  have  to  be  found  to  take  away  the  surplus.  Are 
these  not  sickening  inconsistencies ! 

.A.nother  ethical  excuse  for  war  is  the  establishment  of  a 
world's  empire.  Mohammed  believed  in  subjugation  by  force, 
in  order  to  mould  mankind  into  one  race  with  one  language, 
one  religion  and  one  God.  This  ideal  of  one  shepherd  and 
one  flock  was  also  the  dream  of  the  Pontiff,  but  in  reality 
little  more  than  a  much  abused  policy.  And  thus  it  came  to  pass 
that  Caliphs,  German  Emperors  and  Popes  engaged  for  cen- 
turies in  warfare.  And  as  lasting  supremacy  could  not  be 
accomplished  by  the  sword,  it  was  the  cause  of  incessant  fight- 
ing. Even  legion-haunted  Rome  pretended  to  hope  for  universal 
peace  when  its  boundaries  had  extended  as  far  as  Parthenia, 
Aethiopea.  Germania  and  Sarmatia.  Yet  the  time  never  came 
when  the  temple  of  Janns  could  have  been  closed  for  good. 
Nor  was  the  House  of  Hapsburg  more  successful  in  its  days 
of  prime  when  it  endeavored  to  control  Germany,  Italy,  Hun- 


Bhtno  Chap  n<x)KS  f,l 


gary,  the  N'ctlu'rlaiuls,  Spain,  a  part  of  Africa  and  the  two 
Indies  by  means  of  a  universal  monarchy.  The  process  of 
amalgamation,  necessary  for  such  a  stupendous  task,  is  of  too 
viow  a  growth,  and  the  yeast  of  a  hitter  kind.  .Mso  Napoleon 
persuaded  himself  that  universal  peace  was  the  ultimate  aim  of 
his  wars  of  conquest.  Who  would  not  tremble  at  such  a 
savior  and  self  ordaiiu-d  prescrvator  of  civilization.  He  may 
have  been  a  necessary  factor  in  the  development  of  the  human 
race,  but  was  it  worth  the  sacrifice?  During  his  reign  the 
death  rati  increased  by  millions.  Thousands  of  habitations 
were  pillaged  and  burnt,  and  every  field  within  the  vast  fighting 
areas  was  ploughed  deep  with  hurrying  hoofs  and  wheels  and 
sown  with  shot.  Not  to  speak  of  the  vagabondage,  libertinism 
and  disdain  for  human  property  and  life  which  always  follows 
in  the  wake  of  war. 

Whenever  there  is  a  war  there  is  much  talk  about  permanent 
peace  and  the  enforcement  of  peace  and  a  renewed  activity 
towards  getting  the  nations  of  the  world  together  and  to  make 
peace  a  natural  and  practically  permanent  state.  World  organi- 
zation of  thi<  kind  is  not  a  new  idea.  The  problem  of  inter- 
national peace  has  occupied  the  thoughts  of  many  statesmen  and 
pacifist  thinkers.  .^bbe  de  Saint  Pierre,  with  his  plan  for 
perpetual  peace.  publi<;hed  in  171.'<,  was  its  first  advocate.  In 
this  century  the  Quakers  were  particularly  active.  William 
Allen  and  later  Elihu  Burrett  founded  peace  Societies,  which 
helped  considerably  to  bring  about  the  Peace  Conventions  at 
Brussels.  Paris.  Frankfort.  London.  Kdinburgh.  etc..  during 
the  years  1S4S-53.  Count  Cellon,  in  Geneva,  made  propoganda 
for  the  cause  by  opening  a  correspondence  with  European  rulers 
in  1830.  The  most  important  and  scientific  work  in  this  direc- 
tion, however,  was  done  by  the  Institut  de  Droite  International. 
a  private  society,  which  has  made  a  speciality  of  the  study  of 
international  law  and  published  a  code  of  regfulations  relating 
to  peace  tribunals. 

The  idea  has  also  found  various  expressions  recently  in  the 
States:  the  World  Court  Congress  at  Cleveland.  K.x-President 
Taft's  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  David  Starr  Jordan's  peace 
resolutions,  be<;ides  a  number  of  peace  societies  throughout  the 
ronntry  inclu'ling  the  Peace  and  .Arbitration  Society,  which  at 
one  time  had  as  officers  Roosevelt  and  Dewey  and  the  banker  who 
made  the  Japanese  war  loan  as  treasurer,  which  impresses  one 
as   a   rather  humurous  coincidence. 

It  is  due  to  these  agit.itions  that  several  international 
disputes  were  settled  peacefully,  as  for  instance,  the  Alabama 
trouble  between  England  and  the  States  which  was  settled 
by  an  arbitral  court  in  C.eneva.  1877.  and  the  dispute  over 
the  Baring  Sea  Seal  Fisheries,  the  decision  of  which  was 
left  to  a  Paris  tribunal,  in  1893.  But  it  can  hardly  be 
claims    that    these    proceedings    prevented    war. 

Treaties  and  peace  alliances  have  hitherto  proven  of  little 


62  Bruno  Chap  Books 

value.  If  nations  make  and  sign  treaties,  one  should  think 
that  they  considerd  themselves  in  honor  bound  to  keep  them. 
But  they  rarely  do  if  the  clauses  are  in  any  way  incon- 
venient to  the  ruling  parties.  A  loophole  is  readily  found, 
and  if  it  were  naught  but  a  claim  that  to  uphold  the  treaty 
would  be  false  to  the  best  traditions  of  the  country.  The  lies 
of  a  nation  are  less  tangible  than  those  of  an  individual, 
and  it  is  hardly  credible  that  arbitration  treaties  would  fare 
any  better. 

Complete  disarmement,  as  advocated  by  extreme  pacifists, 
with  the  issuing  neutrality,  no  doubt,  would  prove  a  most 
effective  measure  for  the  securing  of  universal  peace.  But 
what  is  the  use  of  arguing  about  something  that  is  not 
feasible.  Only  minor  powers  might  agree  to  such  a  pact, 
the  larger  powers  could  not  afford  it  as  they  would  not  trust 
each  other.  The  present  tendency  is  rather  to  watch  each 
other,  and  to  work  in  secrecy  for  some  new  death  dealing 
invention  which  assures  increase  of  power  and  national 
security.  Partial  disarmement  is  more  reasonable,  but  even 
when  it  is  agreed  upon  it  does  not  prove  reliable,  as  shown 
by  the  competitive  building  of  dreadnoughts  which  England 
and  Germany  tried  to  reduce  to  a  minimum  for  a  number 
of  years.  In  the  meanwhile,  submarines,  an  unknown  quan- 
tity, were  perfected  and  upset  the  whole  calculation. 

Nations  have  to  remain  armed  and  in  a  state  of  proper 
national  defense,  or  their  voice  in  peace  promotion  would 
hardly  be  listened  to.  The  old  maxim  Si  vis  pacem,  para 
bellum  is  still  the  wisest  way  to  maintain  peace.  Our  fortun- 
ate geographical  position  has  hitherto  enabled  us  to  neglect 
our  land  forces,  whether  this  policy  can  be  followed  in  the 
future  is  open  to  conjecture.  The  introduction  of  the  latest 
instruments  of  war  with  their  distance  devouring  capacity 
should  prompt  us  to  make  reasonable  provisions  for  a  regular 
army  and  coast  defense  as  well  as  a  navy. 

As  for  the  point  blank  refusal  to  serve,  either  by  indi- 
viduals or  special  sects,  there  is  little  hope  for  any  telling 
result  as  long  as  the  majority  can  be  swayed  by  war  senti- 
ment. The  trouble  is  that  although  ordinarily  we  shudder 
at  the  thought  of  war,  and  are  filled  with  sympathy  over  the 
vicissitudes  of  belligerent  nations,  we  become  war  mad  our- 
selves, as  soon  as  we  hear  the  inspiriting  rattle  of  patriotic 
drums.  We  may  join  at  the  start  with  reluctance  and 
doubtful  enthusiasm,  b»ut  we  are  soon  changed  by  the 
sanguinary  spirit  of  war.  Fanatics  on  that  question,  like 
the  Quakers  and  Mennonites,  and  the  Raskolnikans  in  Russia, 
who  actually  refused  to  be  conscribed.  were  forced  into 
submission — the  New  York  draft  riot  in  1863  furnishes  a 
caustic  example — and  even  peace  apostles  like  Burrett  and 
Cobden  preferred  to  work  theoretically  rather  than  to  agi- 
tate open  opposition.     Even  the  anarchists  who  profess  to 


Rki'Vo  Ckah  MixiKn  M 


believe    in    no    authority,    apparently    can     not     escape     the 
authority  of  patriotism. 

Kx-Prcsi(icnt  Taft's  idea  of  a  leajruc  to  enforce  peace, 
although  paradoxical  in  term,  shows  some  clear  and  logical 
thinking.  The  League,  as  its  primary  and  fundamental  prin- 
ciple, advocates  an  agreement  between  the  leading  countries 
of  the  world  not  to  enter  upon  any  state  of  war  before 
they  have  submitted  the  justiciable  issues  of  international 
controversies  to  an  arbitral  court,  and  the  non-justiciable, 
diplomatic  and  ethical,  issues  to  a  commission  of  conciliation. 
Thus,  if  any  member  of  the  League  went  to  war  with  any 
other  member  of  the  Leasue,  lielore  subniittinK  to  the 
opportunities  of  peaceful  settlement,  all  the  other  members 
(as  neutrals  have  a  direct  interest  in  preventing  war)  would 
be  obliged  to  defend  the  attacked  nation  by  their  united 
forces.  Henry  IV'.  and  his  minister.  Sully,  entertained  such 
a  project  in  their  Peace  League  of  Christian  Nations.  The 
problem,  as  naturally  a  general  participation  would  be  in- 
dispensable to  assure  any  results,  is,  to  persuade  all  the  great 
powers  in  joining  such  a  agreement.  If  one  nation  would 
refuse,  the  whole  structure  would  tumble  to  the  ground. 
And  one  had  to  be  of  very  optimistic  disposition  to  believe 
that  all  governments  could  be  made  to  participate.  A 
technical  excuse  will  easily  be  found.  When  the  Holy  Alli- 
ance between  the  monarchs  of  Russia.  Austria  and  Prussia 
in  1S15.  endeavored  to  establish  a  similar  union  of  European 
rulers,  England  excused  itself  because  the  word  of  a  ruler 
was  not  considered  as  binding  for  the  entire  interests  of  a 
nation.  And  Turkey,  a  much  more  formidable  power  than  it  is 
just  now,  was  not  asked  at  all.  Thus  the  alliance  was  merel}', 
what  it  perhaps  meant  to  be,  a  temporary  contract  between 
a  few  rulers.  For  us  it  would  moan  de'iar'urc  from  our 
valued  traditional  policy  of  not  cn'crinc:  into  Europ^nn  c  n- 
troversies,  which  no  doubt,  would  find  rugged  opposition 
in  some  quarters.  And  what  would  happen  if  the  tribunal 
could  not  come  to  a  satisfactory  decision,  as  for  instance, 
in  the  Mexican  Peace  Conference  in  Niagara  Falls.  1914? 
Or  if  the  nation  which  considered  itself  injurerl  would  lose 
patience,  as  the  League  machinery  might  work  too  slow, 
could  war  be  still  avoided?  How  would  it  work?  Suppose 
a  nation  would  attack  and  invade  another,  the  other  of  course, 
had  to  defend  itself,  and  thereu()on  all  the  other  nations 
would  be  on  the  side  of  the  attacked  power  and  send  troops 
for  assistance.  How  quickly  couM  such  troops  be  mobilized? 
Would  it  not  take  considerable  time  before  the  advantages 
gained  by  the  invading  army  could  l>e  annulled  ?  And  would 
it  frighten  a  Freilcrick  the  Great,  a  Napoleon,  or  the  ruling 
parties  of  such  a  nation  into  early  peace  overtures?  Docs 
not  Germany  fight  four  of  its  ncighlwrs  now?     No.  the  result 


64  Bruno  Chap  Books 

would  be  a  new  imbroglio,  another  world's  war.  There 
exists  at  least  the  danger  of  such  an  issue. 

Nevertheless,  the  idea  of  a  permanent  international  court 
of  justice,  a  council  of  the  nations,  and  an  international 
police  (or  rather  army)  seems  to  be  the  most  plausible  to 
aspire  to.  How  these  things  will  come  about,  or  how,  is 
not  so  much  the  question,  as  the  existence  of  such  a  desire  in 
the  mind  of  man.  And  it  may  be  true  that  it  would  require 
but  a  slight  development  in  the  laws  of  international  relations 
to  assert  the  right  of  arbitration  as  a  duty  towards  the  welfare 
of  the  human  race. 

The  introduction  of  an  international  police  looks  particularly 
well  on  paper.  Just  as  we  maintain  peace  in  a  community, 
peace  might  be  kept  among  the  nations.  The  members  of  a 
community  wish  to  be  protected  from  nuisance,  theft,  assault 
and  maintain  a  police  for  the  defense  of  a  peace  to  this  purpose. 
Former  disturbances  as  Fehde  and  Vendetta,  tribal  feuds  and 
religious  persecutions  belong  to  the  past  or  are  under  control 
in  most  countries.  And  just  as  merchants,  shipmasters  and 
others  within  some  ports  have  an  arbitral  court  to  go  to  for 
the  hearing  and  prompt  settlement  of  controversies,  nations 
should  have  a  world's  tribunal.  Yet  the  troubles  of  nations  are 
more  intricate  than  the  squabbles  of  individuals,  or  even  the 
internal  differences  of  a  state  or  province. 

Other  difficulties  lie  in  establishing  an  arbitral  court  with 
sufficient  executive  power  to  enforce  the  realization  of  its 
verdicts;  and  the  selection  of  the  right  kind  of  judges,  honest, 
learned  and  influential  men,  enthusiastically  absorbed  in  their 
task  beyond  any  party  interests,  not  unlike  the  podesta  of 
medieval  Italj%  who  enjoyed  absolute  jurisdiction  within  their 
allotted  township,  but  who  were  forced  to  live  unmarried  and 
isolated  with  their  retinue,  not  coming  into  contact  with  anybody 
during  their  official  term,  to  assure  absolute  impartiality  of 
judgment. 

There  is  still  another  method  that  might  bring  about  the 
desired  solution.  To  declare  war  is  still  the  privilege  of  the 
supreme  heads  of  governments  or  representative  bodies. 
Why  not  leave  the  decision,  whether  a  war  is  wanted  or  not, 
to  a  vote  of  the  entire  population,  in  a  similar  manner  as 
communities  vote  on  questions  of  prohibition.  Universal 
sufferage  should  be  applied  to  dispel  the  warclouds,  as 
Kant  has  argued  in  his  treaties.  "Zum  Ewigen  Frieden,"  so 
that  the  responsibility  of  devastations  by  flame  and  steel 
would  be  equally  shared  by  each  citizen.  Surely  the  in- 
dividual who  has  to  do  the  fighting  and  to  paj-  the  war  taxes 
has  a  right  in  the  matter.  In  what  direction  would  the  ma«ses 
turn  the  trembling  scale,  war  or  peace.  It  is  more  than 
likely  that  in  most  cases,  particularly  if  women  were  allowed 
to  participate,  the  result  of  the  ballot  would  be  a  decided  nay. 

All  we   who  are   inclined  that  way,   can  do   at  present  is  to 


Hki'No  CiiAi-  FLOORS  (..S 


think  and  arniic  peace.  The  advocates  of  peace  at  any  price, 
offer  peace  with  honor,  or  those  ulio  wish  to  enforce  peace 
by  consultation  or  opposition,  are  all  working  for  a  good 
cause.  Let  the  good  work  go  on.  It  will  lielp  to  burn  into 
the  hearts  of  the  people  that  there  are  better  ways  than  war 
to   settle  international   disputes. 

Of  course,  talk  alone  is  futile.  The  task  demands  special 
exploitation,  a  special  type  of  men  who  combine  the  knowl- 
edge of  international  law  of  a  Bluntschli  with  practical  states- 
manship, who  know  how  to  trace  the  origin  of  events  and 
ctinditions  and  who  understand  to  apply  these  observations 
practically  to  those  international  di>tempers  they  would  be  called 
to  cure. 

It  will  advance  at  least — what  the  world  lias  heeded  at  all 
times — a  better  understanding  among  nations,  a  closer  ad- 
herence to  mutual  support  and  a  warmer  realization  of  the 
unity   of    himian    interests    irrespective   of    boundaries. 

The  juncture  for  more  friendly  relations  among  nations  is 
now  as  favorable  as  at  any  other  time. 


GENERAL  LIBRARY    UC    BER 


RETURN      CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
TO^^-      202  Mom  Library 


lOAN  PFRIOD   1 
HOME  USE 

o 

1 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

6 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

,.  .-m    tAAY  n  C 

^32 

IINIV  OF  CALIr.  Btn\ 

t . 

b 

m  1 5  zo« 

vn  0  4  201 

8 

ORM  NO  or 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA   BERKELl 


